Shared decision-making—Results from an interdisciplinary consulting service for prostate cancer

Abstract

Locally confined prostate cancer (PCa) can be treated by various treatment options (e.g. radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy) with comparable results but different possible side effects. Therefore, treatment recommendations can vary between urologists and radiation oncologists. In 2001 the Charité-Campus Benjamin Franklin (CBF, Berlin), established the first interdisciplinary consulting service for prostate cancer patients in Germany. The aim was to offer a comprehensive and neutral consultation on all treatment options and to make treatment recommendations. The study examines what benefits may be derived from this type of consultation. A total of 362 patients presented to the consulting service between May 2001 and April 2003. Two questionnaires were used. The first one contained epidemiological questions as well as questions covering information already available on PCa. It also examined feelings and fears about the disease and possible treatment options. The second questionnaire was completed 2 weeks after the consultation to evaluate the treatment decision, determine the patient’s satisfaction with the consultation and trace the development of feelings and fears. Of the patients, 334 (92.2%) were completely assessable. All patients had already obtained information about the disease and possible treatment options and wished to be involved in the decision-making process through objective and neutral consultation. Nearly all of them had a great fear of the possible side effects of therapy. Such a comprehensive consultation is time-consuming (average of 35 min) but largely received a very positive assessment in that a total of 66% found it either helpful (n=74, 22%) or very helpful (n=147, 44%). Patients felt they had been completely informed in 92% of the cases. Only 22 (9.7%) had still failed to make a decision after 2 weeks, 115 patients had stage T1c, PSA <10 ng/ml and a Gleason score ≤7. In these cases an equivalent recommendation for radical prostatectomy, percutaneous radiotherapy or permanent seed implantation was given. Of these, 49 (43.4%) decided on the surgical intervention, 48 (42.5%) on a type of radiotherapy and only 18 (15.6%) remained undecided. The histological examination of prostatectomy specimens from patients who had decided to undergo radical surgery at CBF showed a significant decrease in the rate of extracapsular disease extension (≥T3) from 38% to 20% during the observation period. The interdisciplinary approach has made the process of deciding on an appropriate treatment much easier for the patient. The time-consuming consultation enables better selection of individual treatment modalities and their possible side effects from the point of view of both the patients and the attending physicians. In this study, patients chose either radical surgery or radiotherapy with equal frequency.